Page 120 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

118 · Hilchot Chukot Hagoyim Tzurba M’Rabanan

The Ran has a different approach to the prohibi- with logic is permitted for Jews to imitate.
5
8
tion of Chukot Ha’akum. He explains that when The Kehilot Yaakov offers a second expla-
something is done out of respect for the king, the nation for the Ran’s view as follows: The deep-
fact that the action contains logic behind it pre- er reason behind the Torah prohibiting cus-
vents it from being considered Chukot Ha’akum. toms of non-Jews is because we might follow
The Ran’s explanation is somewhat perplex- in their ways. In a sense, the prohibition of Chu-
kot Ha’akum is a fence surrounding a mine field.
ing. From where did the Ran derive that a custom Once we’ve copied non-Jews in one area, there is
with logic or reason be a premise to exempt it a real danger of being lured into idol worship and
from the prohibition of imitating non-Jews? After other deviant non-Jewish behavior as well. But
all, the Torah did not specify that the prohibition when a custom has logic or is explicit in the text,
of imitating non-Jews is dependent upon logic, as far as the Torah is concerned it is permissible.
and the Gemara does not spell this out either. In In such cases, the fear of being led astray is not a
addition, how does the Ran address the contra- concern.
diction between the sugya in Sanhedrin and that The Kehilot Yaakov proves this theme from
of Avoda Zara? Many answers have been given to the Ran himself. The Ran in his commentary
explain the Ran, but we will focus on two. on Avoda Zara 11a writes that the reason for the
6
The Maharam Schick and the Tzemach Tze- prohibition of Chukot Ha’akum is because Jews
dek explain that the sugya in Avoda Zara is the might be drawn to non-Jewish ways. The Ran
7
source for the notion that a practice with a logical adds a proof from the Gemara in Chullin 77b. The
reason is permitted. According to the Ran, the Ge- Gemara there states that if the fruit from a tree is
mara’s explanation that burning the king’s posses- falling prematurely, one may cover the trunk in
sions was considered a show of honor is demon- rocks to soak up the oil that comes from the tree,
strating that any practice with a logical reason is and apparently causes the fruits to fall. Although
not subject to Chukot Ha’akum. However, this ap- putting rocks around a tree may be a non-Jewish
proach is not shared by the sugya in Sanhedrin: Ac- custom, the Gemara explains that it is permitted
cording to the Gemara in Sanhedrin, the only way since the rocks serve a logical function (to heal
to permit a custom done by non-Jews is if it was the tree). This case, says the Ran, demonstrates
written in the Torah beforehand, whereas accord- that wherever such a practice has logic to it, there
ing to the Gemara in Avoda Zara, any type of cus- is no problem regarding Chukot Ha’akum.
tom practiced by non-Jews is permitted as long as The Kehilot Yaakov concludes by answering
it has a logical reason. Thus, in contrast to Tosafot, a very simple question: If there is simple logic
the Ran felt that these two Gemarot present two behind the customs discussed in both Gemarot
opposing views that need not be reconciled. The (Sanhedrin and Avoda Zara), why according to
Ran adds that since the issue of Chukot Ha’akum the Ran does the Gemara in Sanhedrin choose
is central in the tractate of Avoda Zara, this is the to answer that it is written in the Torah, when it
main sugya from which the halacha must be de- could simply have said that logical customs are
cided. Hence, in practice we hold that any custom permitted? The Kehilot Yaakov replies that the

5. Avoda Zara 2b (in the pages of the Rif)
6. Responsa 188
7. Responsa 91
8. Essays, Avoda Zara 5

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.